Judge: John J. Kralik, Case: 23BBCV02536, Date: 2024-04-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23BBCV02536    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: NCB

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

North Central District

Department B

BACKGROUND

A.    Allegations

On October 27, 2023, Plaintiff Amy Ablakat (“Plaintiff”) filed the complaint for restitution and damages against Defendant General Motors, LLC (“GM”) for violation of the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.  Plaintiff alleges that on March 4, 2021, she purchased a 2020 Chevrolet Bolt and that the vehicle constitutes a “new” vehicle under the Act.  (Compl., ¶¶4-5.)  Plaintiff alleges that she is a “lessee” of consumer goods and GM is a “manufacturer” who offered an express warranty to Plaintiff under the Act.  (Id., ¶¶6-8.)  Plaintiff alleges that the lease of the subject vehicle was accompanied by an implied warranty of merchantability and fitness.  (Id., ¶9.)  The alleged defects include: a fire risk, electrical, battery, seatbelt pretensioner, and other defect, which manifested within the applicable express warranty period.  (Id., ¶10.) 

She alleges that she took the subject vehicle to an authorized GM service and repair facility for repair on numerous occasions, but GM has been unable and/or refused to conform the vehicle to the applicable warranties, such that GM is obligated to repurchase the vehicle or make restitution.  (Id., ¶¶11-13.) 

B.     Motion on Calendar

On March 18, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion to compel the deposition of GM’s person most qualified, with production of documents, and request for sanctions in the amount of $2,975. 

On March 29, 2024, GM filed an opposition brief.

On April 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a reply brief.

DISCUSSION

            Plaintiff moves to compel the deposition of GM’s PMQ(s) with production of documents.

            Plaintiff argues that she served her Notice of Deposition for GM’s PMQ on November 28, 2023, but GM served objections on December 22, 2023.  Plaintiff’s counsel then tried to meet and confer with GM about the deposition and agreed to withdraw one category of deposition topics and document requests (re other lemon law buybacks) and agreed to execute an LASC model protective order for GM’s lemon law policy and procedures, but GM did not respond to the correspondence.  Plaintiff served the First Amended Notice of Deposition on December 28, 2023 and GM objected on January 11, 2024.  Plaintiff again attempted to meet and confer on January 22, 2024, but GM did not respond.  On January 25, 2024, Plaintiff served the Second Amended Notice of Deposition and GM objected on February 15, 2024. 

Plaintiff argues that the deposition notice seeks to depose GM’s PMQ regarding: (1) questions about why GM did not repurchase or replace the vehicle before the action was filed; (2) questions about why GM has yet to repurchase the vehicle; (3) questions about the service and warranty history; (4) questions about communications between GM and anyone else regarding the vehicle; (5) questions regarding GM’s lemon law policies and procedures; (6) questions relating to GM’s investigations into whether or not the vehicle qualified for repurchase before this action was filed; and (7) questions about the warranty nonconformities in the vehicle.  (Mot. at p.4.)  The requests for production of documents sought: (1) documents showing the repairs to the vehicle; (2) documents evidencing correspondence relating to Plaintiff or the vehicle (excluding attorney-client communications); (3) copies of GM’s California lemon law policy and procedure manual used by GM’s dealers and customer service representatives; (4) GM’s customer service file pertaining to Plaintiff or the vehicle; (5) writings provided to GMs’ customer service representatives that reflect or relate to rules, policies, and procedures concerning the issuance of refunds pursuant to the Act; (6) copies of the technical service bulletins that apply to the vehicle; (7) copies of recall notices that apply to the vehicle; (8) copies of the documents GM reviewed when it decided pre-litigation not to repurchase the vehicle pursuant to the lemon law; (9) GM's lemon law policy and procedure manual; and (10) copies of any photographs or videos GM has of the vehicle.  (Mot. at pp.4-5.) 

In opposition, GM argues that it offered to produce a PMQ on a mutually agreeable date and agreed to produce its PMG on 6 of the 7 deposition categories.  In the separate statement, GM agrees to produce a PMQ for Category Nos. 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, but declines to produce a witness as to Category Nos. 1 and 5.  Differently, in the opposition papers, GM states that it will produce a PMQ witness(es) for Category Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 and produce relevant documents before the deposition.  (Opp. at p.4.) 

While GM argues in the opposition brief and separate statement that the motion should be denied, GM agrees to produce its PMQ on a mutually agreeable date on the deposition topics and produce relevant documents.  GM also states that it will be filing a motion for protective order to ensure that the documents produced will be appropriately protected as they contain confidential and proprietary information. 

The Court grants the motion to compel the deposition of GM’s PMQ as to Category Nos. 1-4 and 6-7, and to produce documents.  The parties are ordered to meet and confer to ascertain a mutually agreeable date to conduct the PMQ deposition.  Further, the parties should meet and confer about entering into a protective order to maintain the confidentiality of GM’s documents that are subject to trade secret and proprietary concerns. 

Plaintiff requests sanctions in the amount of $2,975.  At this time, the Court declines to award sanctions.  However, if further discovery issues develop, the Court will be inclined to impose sanctions at that time. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Plaintiff Amy Ablakat’s motion to compel the deposition of Defendant’s person most qualified is granted as to Category Nos. 1-4 and 6-7, and to produce documents.  The parties are ordered meet and confer to ascertain a date to conduct the PMQ deposition within 45 days of this hearing or on a mutually agreeable date. Further, the parties should meet and confer about entering into a protective order to maintain the confidentiality of GM’s documents that are subject to trade secret and proprietary concerns.  No sanctions shall be awarded on this motion.

Plaintiff shall give notice of this order. 

DATED:  April 12, 2024                                                        ___________________________

                                                                                          John J. Kralik

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court